Research on the Construction of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalent Comprehensive Evaluation System Under the Community Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The topic of this paper is of certain practical significance, but it has many fundamental defects. The specific problems and basis are as follows:

1. This paper takes community theory emphasizing micro-interaction and local identity as the core, but the empirical research is aimed at a county-level unit. There is an obvious scale mismatch between them, and the rationality of theoretical scale transformation is not demonstrated in the paper.
2. Figure 5 shows that most indicators score above 0.8, with a comprehensive index of 0.8184. However, the benchmarks of 130,000 RMB for per capita GDP and 1.5 for the urban-rural income ratio are far higher than the national average. The interpretation of the scores is seriously inconsistent with the basic national condition that China is still in the critical stage of rural revitalization.
3. "Urban-rural equivalence" was proposed by foreign scholars and is usually used in academic research, not an official Chinese policy expression. However, concepts clearly mentioned in China’s central policy documents, such as "urban-rural coordination", "urban-rural integration" and "urban-rural integrated development", are not elaborated in the paper, nor is the relationship between urban-rural equivalence and the above concepts discussed, so it cannot be closely connected with China's central policies.
4. This paper only mentions 417 valid questionnaires, without disclosing key information such as questionnaire design, sampling method, sample demographic characteristics and spatial distribution. The reliability and repeatability of the research results cannot be verified.
5. The strategy framework proposed in Figure 6 is not effectively corresponding to the 21 evaluation indicators mentioned above. For example, network optimization only corresponds to a single indicator of transportation convenience, and the countermeasures and suggestions lack empirical support.
6. The discussion part only repeats its own research results, does not conduct academic dialogue with existing urban-rural evaluation studies, and does not explain the theoretical and methodological innovations of this study.
7. The reference format does not meet the journal requirements.
8. Figure 4 is a non-standard map of China without a map review number; the scale and element labeling are not standardized; a north arrow and a graticule are generally not used at the same time; the superimposed elevation information in the background has little to do with the research of this paper.

In summary, the paper has multiple fundamental defects, the research results are unreliable, and it is not recommended for acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have greatly appreciated the reviewers’ efforts. Comments and feedback were very constructive and able to improve the quality of the manuscript.

My Manuscript:sustainability-4307148

Article titled: "Development and Empirical Validation of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalence Comprehensive Evaluation Framework under Community Theory"

Modified parts of the manuscript have been shown in Red highlight color function.The following is a summary of the reviewers' comments.

Kind regards

Qingmu Su

 

 

Reviewer 1:

Suggestion 1.This paper takes community theory emphasizing micro-interaction and local identity as the core, but the empirical research is aimed at a county-level unit. There is an obvious scale mismatch between them, and the rationality of theoretical scale transformation is not demonstrated in the paper.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. We have added a section explaining the necessity of selecting county-level units, such as line 362-380.

Line 362-380 “The "community" perspective advocated in this paper is not a simple transplantation of the traditional sociological concept of "community," which is based on close geographical and kinship ties and emphasizes high homogeneity and small scale. The county, as the "end of the city and beginning of the countryside," is a key spatial unit where urban and rural elements converge, functions complement each other, and governance coordinate. Applying community theory to this scale is reasonable because this study grasps and operationally reconstructs the core of the classic theory. We discard its nostalgic imagery and micro-scale limitations, instead extracting its core essence of "social connection" and "communicative living," and deconstructing it into three mutually supportive and logically progressive analytical dimensions: "region, governance, and relationship." This framework aims to systematically depict, at the meso-level of the county, how urban and rural areas move from division to integration through shared spatial infrastructure and facilities networks (regional community), coordinated public services and institutional arrangements (governance community), and harmonious social identity and interactive relationships (relational community). Therefore, by taking county-level units as the research object, we can systematically observe and assess whether and to what extent a complex community of development and life is being formed between urban and rural areas, characterized by shared interests, shared responsibilities, and emotional resonance.”

 

Suggestion 2. Figure 5 shows that most indicators score above 0.8, with a comprehensive index of 0.8184. However, the benchmarks of 130,000 RMB for per capita GDP and 1.5 for the urban-rural income ratio are far higher than the national average. The interpretation of the scores is seriously inconsistent with the basic national condition that China is still in the critical stage of rural revitalization.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. Figure 5 shows a high score for the comprehensive index and most indicators. This result needs to be understood within the framework of this study's "community" theory. The weighting design of the indicator system focuses on measuring the degree of connection, synergy, and sharing between urban and rural areas in three dimensions: "region, governance, and relationships." A county may not be among the top in the country in terms of absolute economic level, but if it performs well in areas such as public service coverage, infrastructure interconnection, smooth flow of factors of production, and social recognition, it may receive a high score in the comprehensive evaluation. This reflects the core viewpoint of this study: urban-rural equivalence does not equal urban-rural parity; its core lies in the convergence of quality of life, development opportunities, and rights protection, rather than simple equality in economic statistics. A high score reflects that the county has a good structural foundation in terms of complementary urban-rural functions and coordinated development, rather than denying its overall development stage as a main unit of rural revitalization.

Currently, China's urban-rural income ratio in 2025 is 2.31. We refer to the urban-rural income ratio of 1.5 in developed European countries as our judgment of urban-rural income equivalence.

The determination of benchmark values such as "per capita GDP of 130,000 yuan" and "urban-rural income ratio of 1.5" in the indicator system is mainly based on the theoretical ideal state of "urban-rural equivalence," the practical experience of developed regions, and the national medium- and long-term development strategic goals. Setting benchmarks higher than the current national average aims to guide evaluation to "look forward," measuring the relative position and progress potential of county-level urban-rural relations in the process of moving towards high-quality integration and common prosperity, rather than merely describing their absolute distance from the current national average. This is similar to using a "perfect score" standard to measure a student's potential for improvement; a high score (e.g., above 0.8) does not mean that the ideal state has been fully achieved, but rather that, in terms of value orientation, its structural conditions are relatively closer to the pre-set "equivalence" target. We have supplemented this in the article, as shown in line 626-635.

Line 626-635 “The indices for urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County are concentrated in the range of 0.81-0.83. High scores indicate that the county is relatively close to the pre-set ideal state in multiple dimensions, but this does not mean that its development level has surpassed the basic national conditions or reached a developed stage. Rather, it reveals that, based on the existing foundation, the structural synergy of urban-rural relations is relatively good. Secondly, the qualitative conclusion of "moderate equivalence," combined with the specific values ​​of the comprehensive index, jointly demonstrates that Xiapu County's urban-rural integration has moved beyond the general "basic gap-filling" stage and entered a new platform requiring optimization of the quality of "connection" and "synergy" mechanisms.”

 

Suggestion 3. "Urban-rural equivalence" was proposed by foreign scholars and is usually used in academic research, not an official Chinese policy expression. However, concepts clearly mentioned in China’s central policy documents, such as "urban-rural coordination", "urban-rural integration" and "urban-rural integrated development", are not elaborated in the paper, nor is the relationship between urban-rural equivalence and the above concepts discussed, so it cannot be closely connected with China's central policies.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. We have added this information, such as line 139-155.

Line 139-155 “The concept of "urban-rural equivalence" originates from the German scholar's idea of "urban-rural equivalence" (Gleichwertigkeit der Lebensverhältnisse) in rural development practice. Its core meaning is to pursue substantive equality for urban and rural residents in terms of "quality of life, development opportunities, and rights protection," rather than uniformity in economic scale or landscape form. China's "coordinated urban-rural development" emphasizes breaking down the urban-rural dual structure and promoting the rational allocation of factors; "urban-rural integration" focuses on achieving overall coordination of urban and rural spaces in infrastructure, public services, and planning management; while "integrated urban-rural development" is a strategic deepening in the new era, aiming to promote the free flow of urban and rural factors, the balanced allocation of public resources, and the synergistic complementarity of industrial development, ultimately achieving common prosperity. From "coordination" to "integration," the policy evolution reflects a sublimation from reducing disparities to building a new type of urban-rural relationship. "Urban-rural equivalence" is highly consistent with the above-mentioned Chinese policy goals in terms of value orientation and can be regarded as an operational social goal interpretation and measurement perspective for achieving "integration" and "coordination."”

 

Suggestion 4. This paper only mentions 417 valid questionnaires, without disclosing key information such as questionnaire design, sampling method, sample demographic characteristics and spatial distribution. The reliability and repeatability of the research results cannot be verified.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. We have added relevant information about the questionnaire design to the paper, such as line 470-530.

Line 470-530 “3.2.2 Questionnaire design and sampling survey

This study, based on the "region-governance-relationship" community theory framework and its subordinate perception evaluation indicators, designed the "Urban-Rural Integration Residents' Perception Questionnaire." The questionnaire consists of two parts: the first part assesses residents' socioeconomic attributes, collecting information such as gender, age, household registration, occupation, annual family income, and place of residence; the second part is the core perception scale, corresponding to specific indicators in the evaluation system such as ecological environment, facility convenience, public service satisfaction, governance participation, social trust, cultural identity, frequency of interaction, and willingness to help each other. All perception items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree/strongly dissatisfied, 5 = strongly agree/strongly satisfied). The initial draft of the questionnaire underwent multiple rounds of review by the research team and experts in urban and rural planning, and a small-scale pre-survey was conducted in Xiapu County. Based on feedback, the wording, order, and options of the items were optimized to form the final questionnaire.

In terms of sampling methods, this study employed a combination of stratified random sampling and convenience sampling. First, based on administrative divisions and urban-rural attributes, the county was divided into three tiers: "urban streets" (Songcheng, Songgang), "central towns" (Sansha, Yacheng, Xinan, etc.), and "general townships," to reflect differences in residents' perceptions under different levels of urbanization and location conditions. Second, the target sample size was allocated according to the approximate proportion of the permanent residents in each tier to ensure a balanced urban-rural sample. The field survey employed face-to-face interviews and on-site questionnaire completion and collection. Random intercept interviews were conducted at community centers, parks, squares, and commercial streets in urban areas, and at markets and public activity areas in administrative villages in townships. The survey was conducted intensively from February to March 2025, distributing 450 questionnaires and collecting 417 valid questionnaires, resulting in a valid response rate of 92.7%.

The demographic characteristics of the valid sample are as follows: the gender ratio is basically balanced (51.1% male, 48.9% female); the age range covers all age groups from under 18 to over 65, with young and middle-aged people (18-45 years old) as the main group (approximately 65.2%), while also including a considerable proportion of middle-aged and elderly people (over 46 years old, 30.0%); the occupational distribution covers enterprise employees, public officials, self-employed individuals, farmers, students, freelancers, and retirees; the household registration types include urban (52.0%) and rural (48.0%). The distribution of annual household income is spindle-shaped, with middle-income households (50,000-150,000 yuan) accounting for the highest proportion (approximately 60.4%). Overall, the sample has good diversity in socioeconomic attributes and can reflect the perspectives of different groups.

Spatially, the 417 samples widely cover all 14 townships (subdistricts) of Xiapu County. Of the total sample size, approximately 35.0% came from the county seat (Songcheng, Songgang), approximately 45.0% from central towns (Sansha, Yacheng, Xinan, Xiahu, Changchun, etc.), and approximately 20.0% from other general townships and remote areas (such as Baiyang, Beibi, and islands). This distribution largely aligns with the spatial agglomeration characteristics of Xiapu County's population, highlighting coverage of major population clusters while also considering the representativeness of peripheral areas, providing a relatively reliable data foundation for evaluating urban-rural equivalence at the county-wide level.

This study systematically tested the reliability and validity of the subjective perception scales (C6-C21), which form the core of the evaluation system (Table 2). A stratified random sampling method was used to survey residents aged 18 and above, and the reliability test was satisfactory (Cronbach's α = 0.815). Exploratory factor analysis initially validated the fit between the scale structure and the theoretical framework (KMO = 0.939, cumulative explained variance 68.7%), followed by confirmatory factor analysis confirming a good fit between the measurement model and the data (χ²/df = 2.41, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.936). The combinatorial reliability (0.78–0.90) and mean variance extracted (0.55–0.65) of all latent variables met the criteria, and the discriminant validity was satisfactory. Overall, the questionnaire tool used in this study exhibits high internal consistency and good construct validity, and can reliably measure the theoretical construct.

Table 2 Reliability Test of the Criterion Layer of the Indicator System

Criterion layer	Criterion layer name	Corresponding indicator number	Reliability testing methods	Reliability coefficient
B2	Spatial land use and ecological foundation	C6	Cronbach's α	0.786
B3	Infrastructure configuration	C7	-	-
B4	Accessibility and sense of gain of public services	C8-C13	Cronbach's α	0.881
B5	Institutional guarantees and sense of trust	C14-C15	Spearman-Brown	0.778
B6	Cultural identity and belonging	C16-C18	Cronbach's α	0.781
B7	Social relations and cooperation	C19-C21	Cronbach's α	0.848

”

 

Suggestion 5. The strategy framework proposed in Figure 6 is not effectively corresponding to the 21 evaluation indicators mentioned above. For example, network optimization only corresponds to a single indicator of transportation convenience, and the countermeasures and suggestions lack empirical support.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. This section aims to transform the quantitative evaluation and qualitative analysis presented earlier into a precise assessment of the equivalent development stage of urban and rural areas in Xiapu County, and based on this, generate a clearly targeted planning response. We have modified the strategy as shown in line 732-790.

Line 732-790 “(1) Promoting an efficiency revolution in the connectivity system from "tangible" to "effective."

This response directly addresses the shortcomings of inefficient connectivity within "regional communities," based on the discrepancies between indicators such as C7, C10, and C13, and on-site feedback. The core strategy is to promote the integration of transportation, logistics, and information networks to improve overall network efficiency. Specifically, while maintaining the accessibility of main transportation arteries, the focus should be on developing smart and flexible "responsive rural micro-buses" to dynamically connect remote residential areas with township hubs, solving the "last mile" travel problem and directly improving the overall service experience represented by C7. Simultaneously, township transportation service stations and village-level convenience service points should be upgraded to integrated "passenger, freight, and mail" nodes, and a special action to "fill gaps and improve quality" of digital infrastructure should be implemented to ensure stable network signal coverage. By building a county-level smart living service platform, integrating travel, logistics, and public service information, and empowering physical flows with digital flow, a highly efficient, reliable, and intelligent composite urban-rural connectivity system can be constructed, laying a solid spatial foundation for the smooth flow and value exchange of all elements.

(2) Deepen the coordinated reform of service supply and governance system.

This response aims to solve the problem of insufficient quality transmission and coordination faced by the "governance community". It is based on the in-depth analysis of the C8-C15 series indicators, especially C11, C14 and C15. The key to the strategy is to innovate the mechanism to promote the sinking of high-quality public services and the formation of a multi-governance pattern. On the one hand, we should vigorously promote the group development model of "high-quality schools (hospitals) in county towns + branch schools (hospitals) in townships" and support it with the talent rotation and exchange system of "county management and school hiring, county management and township use". This mechanism will ensure the orderly and sustainable flow of high-quality education resources and medical resources to townships and substantially improve the equalization of public services. On the other hand, we need to institutionalize the "urban-rural development co-governance committee" at the township level, and include village cadres, resident representatives, local elites, social organizations, local enterprises and other diverse subjects in the consultation and decision-making process of public affairs, and use digital tools to realize the normalization of government affairs disclosure and opinion collection. By linking the management and maintenance responsibilities of small-scale public spaces and community environmental protection with community organizations, local governance forces are cultivated in practice, transforming institutional trust (C14) and resident participation (C15) into tangible governance effectiveness.

(3) Launching a Social and Cultural Identity and Endogenous Motivation Cultivation Project

This response directly addresses the fundamental contradiction of insufficient cultural identity and endogenous motivation within the "community of relations," and its basis comes directly from the performance of social and cultural dimension indicators such as C16, C17, and C18. The focus of the strategy is to nurture social capital and activate shared emotions through cultural co-cultivation and interest linkage. A systematic urban-rural "cultural co-cultivation" plan must be implemented, not limited to festival performances, but also deeply exploring, recording, and disseminating the county's shared marine culture, immigrant history, and local skills, transforming them into content for community education and public art, and reshaping local cultural identity (C16) and shared memories. More importantly, the "community interest linkage" model should be prioritized and promoted in projects such as rural industrial development, rural tourism, and community building. This model allows local urban and rural residents to invest in the community through various means, including capital, land, and labor, forming an economic community with shared risks and benefits. This deep connection based on common economic interests and social cooperation (C19, C20, C21) can most effectively bridge the psychological barriers between urban and rural identities, cultivate a sense of shared belonging, and thus provide the strongest endogenous driving force for the sustainable development of urban-rural integration in counties.”

 

Suggestion 6. The discussion part only repeats its own research results, does not conduct academic dialogue with existing urban-rural evaluation studies, and does not explain the theoretical and methodological innovations of this study.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. In the discussion section, we have supplemented the theoretical contributions, the differences from previous research, and the innovative aspects of this study. (e.g., line 806-881).

line 806-881 “The empirical results reveal a stage characterized by "moderate level, triadic synergy" in Xiapu County's urban-rural equivalence. Such a finding transcends the simplistic narrative that privileges material factors over social ones or prioritizes the economy while neglecting culture. It suggests that at specific developmental junctures, urban-rural integration can manifest as a systemic and structural form of initial synergy. Hence, the understanding of county-level urban-rural equivalence must be deepened from static "disparity description" to dynamic "mechanism diagnosis." The three primary contradictions in the Xiapu County case, namely inefficient spatial connectivity, blocked public service transmission, and weak social bonding, converge on a core insight. Advanced urban-rural equivalence essentially results from the co-evolution and mutual reinforcement of the territorial, governance, and relational community subsystems. Therefore, the focus of planning intervention should shift from adding resources to a single dimension to optimizing the "connectivity" mechanisms within the system, i.e., enhancing the fluidity of network organization, the synergy of governance chains, and the regenerative capacity of social capital.

This study constructs a community evaluation framework based on "region-governance-relationships," which attempts to find a critical path between two traditions: it opposes the excessive materialism, technocratization, and indicator-driven tendencies in traditional urban-rural evaluation systems, while also avoiding the boundless veneration of subjectivity, local narratives, and fragmentation from a purely postmodern perspective. This effort to integrate objective measurement with subjective perception, structural analysis with meaning interpretation, is not a simple compromise, but rather deeply aligned with the logic of "metamodernism," a cutting-edge trend in contemporary human geography. Metamodernism is understood as a way of thinking that oscillates between modernism (pursuing rationality, grand narratives, and universal truths) and postmodernism (emphasizing deconstruction, relativism, and local knowledge), attempting to transcend their binary opposition. It strives to provide a comprehensive platform integrating empirical, interpretive, material, symbolic, and practical knowledge to address the complex challenges of contemporary regional transformation. Urban-rural equivalence is not merely a static "target" represented by a comprehensive index, but a dynamic and multi-layered spatial state that is constantly constructed, negotiated, and perceived within multiple geographical realities.

From a theoretical perspective, this study is an important supplement and deepening of the mainstream urban-rural "factor-structure" evaluation paradigm, achieving a paradigm shift from "gap comparison" to "relationship diagnosis." Existing research on urban-rural integration or equivalence primarily follows the "factor-structure" analysis paradigm, focusing on measuring the allocation efficiency of quantifiable factors such as population, land, and capital, or the gaps in structural indicators such as economic output, infrastructure, and public service coverage. These studies answer the question of "how much difference" between urban and rural areas, essentially comparing development outcomes or static states. The "community" perspective introduced in this study shifts the analytical focus from "factors" and "structure" to "relationships" and "processes." Our constructed three-dimensional framework of "region-governance-relationship" aims to diagnose whether and how a sustainable connection mechanism of "shared benefits, shared responsibilities, and emotional integration" has been formed between urban and rural areas. The value of this paradigm shift lies in its revelation that even if gaps in certain hardware indicators narrow, if social identity is weak and governance coordination fails, the relationship between urban and rural areas may still be a "fragile approach" or "passive integration," rather than an "organic fusion." This compensates for the shortcomings of traditional research in capturing the "social" and "process-oriented" dimensions of urban-rural relations, providing a more explanatory theoretical lens for understanding the deep mechanisms of urban-rural integration.

The primary theoretical contribution of this study lies in its successful operationalization of the relatively abstract sociological concept of "community" into a clearly structured and logically coherent triadic analytical framework of territorial, governance, and relational communities. The proposed framework transcends the limitation common in existing research of simply juxtaposing multiple dimensions without a theoretical core. It reveals the deep essence of urban-rural equivalence: the outcome of the mutual matching and co-evolution of three community subsystems, namely territory (spatial carrier), governance (institutional operation), and relationality (socio-psychological bonding). The framework not only organically integrates material and non-material evaluative elements but also elucidates their progressive logic of "foundation–bridge–core," thereby providing a powerful theoretical lens for understanding the complex connotations of urban-rural integration. At the methodological level, the contribution of this study lies in the construction and empirical validation of an evaluation instrument system oriented toward "mechanism diagnosis." First, by setting reference values for urban-rural equivalence for objective indicators and performing standardized transformations on subjective perception data, the evaluation results directly reflect the "distance" between the current state and the ideal state, rather than a relative position within the sample. Second, by analyzing the distribution of low-scoring indicators across the three-dimensional framework (e.g., low participation in cultural activities corresponds to insufficient momentum in the relational community), the study achieves precise identification of the specific mechanisms constraining integration. Such an approach, which integrates objective statistical data with subjective perception data and focuses on explaining "why equivalence is not achieved," enhances the explanatory power and practical relevance of the research.”

 

Suggestion 7. The reference format does not meet the journal requirements.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have revised the references to conform to the journal's format.

 

Suggestion 8. Figure 4 is a non-standard map of China without a map review number; the scale and element labeling are not standardized; a north arrow and a graticule are generally not used at the same time; the superimposed elevation information in the background has little to do with the research of this paper.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have revised Figure 4.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The paper is based on the high-quality development of urban-rural integration, and constructs a three-dimensional urban-rural equivalence evaluation system of "material service culture" based on the community theory. The topic is closely related to the national strategy and the practical needs of county-level planning, and the research perspective has important application value. The study used a combination of objective statistical data and subjective questionnaires to conduct empirical research in Xiapu County, with standardized methods and detailed data. Three major bottlenecks were diagnosed, and community-oriented planning strategies were proposed. But the paper has significant shortcomings: Firstly, in section 2.1 (lines 145-186), the explanation of the theoretical origins, hierarchical logic, and operational mechanisms of regional/governance/relational communities is brief and remains at the level of conceptual application, without forming a rigorous theoretical chain. For example, what classic theories from multiple disciplines such as sociology, economics, geography, etc. do the authors base their proposal on? What is the logical relationship or progressive mechanism among the three of them? For these key contents, they are still very vague. Secondly, in section 3.2, the construction of the indicator system lacks sufficient basis, and the calculation of weight methods is not explained. Suggest that the author add some references appropriately for indicator selection and clarify the reasons for indicator selection and screening. At the same time, supplement the expert scoring and weight calculation process, as well as consistency testing and sensitivity analysis. Thirdly, empirical analysis relies more on descriptive analysis and lacks quantitative basis and support. For example, in section 4.2, which is a textual description, the author should introduce models such as obstacle degree model and coupling coordination model to quantitatively analyze the collaborative level of different dimensional communities, and add visual analysis of charts (such as bar charts, radar charts, etc.) to enhance the scientific nature and readability of the paper analysis. Fourthly, in section 4.3, the policy recommendations are too general and generalized, without considering the regional characteristics of the coastal, mountainous, and island areas of Xiapu to propose differentiated and actionable paths. Fifth, the format of the reference list is incorrect and does not meet the requirements of sustainability. A large amount of literature has inconsistent abbreviations for author names and missing DOIs. Meanwhile, foreign papers do not need to be labeled with "[J]".  

Author Response

Reply to reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We have greatly appreciated the reviewers’ efforts. Comments and feedback were very constructive and able to improve the quality of the manuscript.

My Manuscript:sustainability-4307148

Article titled: "Development and Empirical Validation of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalence Comprehensive Evaluation Framework under Community Theory"

Modified parts of the manuscript have been shown in Red highlight color function.The following is a summary of the reviewers' comments.

Kind regards

Qingmu Su

 

Reviewer 2

 

Suggestion 1. Firstly, in section 2.1 (lines 145-186), the explanation of the theoretical origins, hierarchical logic, and operational mechanisms of regional/governance/relational communities is brief and remains at the level of conceptual application, without forming a rigorous theoretical chain. For example, what classic theories from multiple disciplines such as sociology, economics, geography, etc. do the authors base their proposal on? What is the logical relationship or progressive mechanism among the three of them? For these key contents, they are still very vague.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. By clearly outlining the disciplinary lineage of each "community," we clarify its theoretical origins, internal logic, and operational mechanisms. (e.g., line 228-255)

line 228-255“The core idea of regional community originates from the theories of "place" and "spatial production" in human geography, and the theory of "spatial interaction" in regional science. It emphasizes that urban-rural equivalence is primarily a geographical process, focusing on the spatial distribution, connection, and functional integration of material elements (infrastructure, ecological background, settlements). Its theoretical goal is to overcome spatial "fragmentation" and "isolation," achieving the free flow and efficient allocation of factors, which responds to classic economic issues regarding transaction costs and agglomeration economies. Therefore, regional community constitutes the material foundation and spatial carrier of urban-rural equivalence.

The core of governance community draws upon the theories of "polycentric governance" and "collaborative governance" in public administration and political science, as well as the discourse in institutional economics on how "institutional arrangements" shape development. It argues that urban-rural equivalence is essentially a political and institutional process. Physical spatial connection alone is insufficient to achieve equivalence; a fair, efficient, and inclusive set of institutional arrangements and governance procedures is needed to coordinate the interests of multiple stakeholders (government, market, society), allocate public resources, and formulate and implement spatial planning. Governance community thus constitutes the institutional guarantee and driving mechanism for achieving urban-rural equivalence.

The theoretical core of relational communities is deeply rooted in the sociological and community studies theories of "social capital," "community," and "identity politics," as well as the exploration of "sense of place" and "sense of belonging" in human geography. It points out that urban-rural equivalence must ultimately be a social and cultural process. Sustainable equivalence depends on residents' emotional, identity, and cultural identification with the "urban-rural community," and on social connections based on trust, reciprocity, and shared norms. Relational communities focus on social integration, cultural prosperity, and subjective participation, constituting the socio-cultural core and source of meaning for maintaining urban-rural equivalence.”

 

Suggestion 2. Secondly, in section 3.2, the construction of the indicator system lacks sufficient basis, and the calculation of weight methods is not explained. Suggest that the author add some references appropriately for indicator selection and clarify the reasons for indicator selection and screening. At the same time, supplement the expert scoring and weight calculation process, as well as consistency testing and sensitivity analysis.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions and have added supplementary evidence and analysis for the relevant indicator system, as shown in line 383-468.

line 383-468“Grounded in the theoretical framework from a community perspective, this study constructed a multidimensional, multilevel comprehensive evaluation indicator system for county-level urban-rural equivalence (Table 1). The system is not arbitrarily constructed. Its core rationale derives from reinterpreting urban-rural equivalence through community theory and the associated need for operationalization. Traditional assessments of urban-rural disparities have largely focused on quantifiable material and economic indicators. This study, however, argues that genuine "equivalence" is the outcome of the synergistic interplay among three dimensions: territorial community (material-spatial foundation), governance community (institutional and service operation), and relational community (socio-psychological bonding). Consequently, the fundamental basis for indicator formation lies in transforming these three abstract theoretical dimensions into observable, measurable, and comparable concrete variables, thereby enabling a systematic diagnosis of the comprehensive state of urban-rural integration in terms of "hardware" configuration, "software" operation, and "heartware" connectivity. 

The evaluation index system constructed in this study follows a comprehensive approach of "theory-driven, literature reference, expert consultation, and field verification." First, the initial selection of indicators is deeply rooted in the theoretical framework of the "region-governance-relationship" triadic community mentioned earlier. Based on this, extensive references were made to the national "Evaluation Index System for County-level Urbanization Construction," relevant research on the localization assessment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[45, 46], and relevant literature on urban and rural development evaluation in recent years [47-49].

Based on this, the construction of the indicator system follows a progressive specification pathway from "theoretical dimensions" to "criteria levels" to "specific indicators." First, the three community dimensions are operationalized into three first-level evaluation dimensions: physical infrastructure equivalence (territorial community), socioeconomic service equivalence (governance community), and cultural identity and social connection equivalence (relational community). This design transcends the conventional separation between material and non-material aspects, emphasizing that urban-rural equivalence encompasses spatial support, service efficacy, and social capital. Second, to capture internal differentiation within each dimension, seven criteria levels are established as a bridge between the first-level dimensions and specific indicators. For instance, physical infrastructure equivalence is disaggregated into "coordination of urban-rural economy and spatial resources," "spatial land use and ecological foundation," and "infrastructure configuration." Socioeconomic service equivalence is disaggregated into "accessibility and perceived gain of public services" and "institutional safeguards." Cultural identity and social connection equivalence is disaggregated into "cultural identity and sense of belonging" and "social relations and cooperation." Such a structural design ensures that the evaluation not only covers the core domains of urban-rural relations but also captures in depth the key issues within each domain.

Based on the initial indicator pool, this study conducted two rounds of expert consultation using the Delphi method. Fifteen invited experts, covering urban and rural planning, regional economics, public administration, and sociology, scored the necessity, accessibility, and representativeness of the indicators using a questionnaire (Likelit 5-point scale). The selection criteria were: indicators with a mean score ≥ 4.0 and a coefficient of variation < 0.25 were retained, ultimately forming a final system comprising 6 criterion levels and 21 specific indicators. The indicator weights were determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), based on Saaty's 1-9 scale. The same group of experts conducted pairwise comparisons of indicators at each level, constructing a judgment matrix. Yaahp software was used to process the expert scores, calculate the weights of each indicator, and perform consistency checks. The consistency ratio (CR) of all judgment matrices was less than 0.1 (specific values ranged from 0.02 to 0.08), passing the test and indicating that the experts' judgment logic was consistent and the weight results were acceptable. The final weights were the geometric mean of the expert judgments. To test the robustness of the weight allocation, this study further conducted a sensitivity analysis of the weights. By adjusting the weights of the criteria layer by 10% up and down respectively, the fluctuations in the comprehensive index value and ranking were observed. The analysis shows that within a reasonable fluctuation range, the comprehensive evaluation results remain stable, with the comprehensive index value of Xiapu County fluctuating between 0.798 and 0.837. The overall judgment of "medium-high equivalence" and the conclusion of key shortcomings have not fundamentally changed, which proves that the evaluation model has strong robustness.

The final indicator system features a clear three-tier hierarchical structure, comprising three first-level dimensions, seven criteria levels, and twenty-one specific indicators. In the selection of indicators, this study places particular emphasis on integrating objective statistical data with residents' subjective perception data in order to overcome the biases inherent in any single data source. Specifically, for the physical infrastructure equivalence dimension, objective statistical indicators such as per capita gross regional product, urban-rural income gap, proportion of non-agricultural industries, per capita urban and rural land use area, and urbanization rate are primarily adopted, supplemented by subjective perception indicators (C6, C7) concerning residents' views on ecological environment and infrastructure service levels. For the socioeconomic service equivalence dimension, the assessment relies entirely on questionnaire surveys, measuring residents' perceptions of accessibility and convenience in education, healthcare, transport, public culture, commercial services, and digital services (C8-C13), as well as their evaluations of institutional fairness and their own participation (C14, C15). For the cultural identity and social connection equivalence dimension, questionnaire surveys are likewise employed to measure residents' local cultural identity, identity acceptance, and participation in cultural activities (C16-C18), along with interpersonal trust, trust in community organizations, and frequency of daily interactions (C19-C21). This "objective-subjective combined" indicator structure enables the evaluation system not only to reflect the objective conditions of urban-rural resource allocation but also to capture residents' lived experiences, emotional attitudes, and sense of gain in their daily lives, thereby revealing a more comprehensive and multidimensional picture of county-level urban-rural equivalence.”

 

Suggestion 3. Thirdly, empirical analysis relies more on descriptive analysis and lacks quantitative basis and support. For example, in section 4.2, which is a textual description, the author should introduce models such as obstacle degree model and coupling coordination model to quantitatively analyze the collaborative level of different dimensional communities, and add visual analysis of charts (such as bar charts, radar charts, etc.) to enhance the scientific nature and readability of the paper analysis.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. We added quantitative analysis. Table 3 presents the quantitative results of each level of indicators under the urban-rural equivalence evaluation index system in Xiapu County, including standardized scores, weights, comparison of urban and rural sample means, statistical significance tests, and constraint factor diagnosis based on the obstacle degree model (see line 604-637).

Furthermore, we added supplementary analysis of the subjective perceptions of urban and rural residents in Xiapu County (see line 640-659). We also revised Table 3 and Figures 6 and 7 to improve the visualization of the results.

Line 604-637 “Based on the evaluation model established in Chapter 3, the calculation results show (Figure 5，Table 4) that the urban-rural Equivalence Index (UEI) of Xiapu County is 0.8184. According to the preset classification criteria (with 0.70-0.85 indicating moderate equivalence), the county as a whole is at a moderate equivalence level, with the value situated in the upper range of this interval. This study calculated the 95% confidence interval of the index using the Bootstrap method, and the result was [0.794, 0.842]. This suggests that Xiapu County has established a favorable development foundation for urban-rural integration and is generally close to the preset ideal reference state of equivalence. A more critical structural finding concerns the relationships among the three first-level dimensional indices. The physical infrastructure equivalence (A1) index is 0.8124, the socioeconomic service equivalence (A2) index is 0.8271, and the cultural identity and social connection equivalence (A3) index is 0.8158. All three indices fall within the moderate equivalence range, with minimal variation among them (the maximum difference is only 0.0147). This result challenges the simple linear assumption that "material foundation leads while socio-culture lags," revealing that urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County is characterized by a notable pattern of initial synergy and coordinated advancement across the three dimensions of material foundation, institutional services, and socio-culture. The public service and institutional guarantee dimension (A2) shows a slight lead, suggesting relative success in the spatial layout of public service networks and perceived institutional fairness. The socio-cultural dimension (A3) does not lag significantly behind, implying that social integration has remained broadly synchronous with improvements in material and service conditions.

The indices for urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County are concentrated in the range of 0.81-0.83. High scores indicate that the county is relatively close to the pre-set ideal state in multiple dimensions, but this does not mean that its development level has surpassed the basic national conditions or reached a developed stage. Rather, it reveals that, based on the existing foundation, the structural synergy of urban-rural relations is relatively good. Secondly, the qualitative conclusion of "moderate equivalence," combined with the specific values ​​of the comprehensive index, jointly demonstrates that Xiapu County's urban-rural integration has moved beyond the general "basic gap-filling" stage and entered a new platform requiring optimization of the quality of "connection" and "synergy" mechanisms.

Table 4 Analysis of Urban-Rural Equivalence Measurement Results in Xiapu County

Target Layer (A) and Composite Index	Criterion layer  (B)	Corresponding indicator (C)	Reference values	Indicator score (Sj)	Indicator weight (wi)	Urban/rural sample mean (urban/rural)	Standard deviation (combined)	Urban-rural difference t-test (p-value)	Barrier degree (%)	Ranking
A1 I₁ = 0.8124​	B1 ​	C1	13.0	0.594	0.110	13.2 / 7.1	-	-	4.47	5
		C2	1.5	0.857	0.053	1.73	-	-	0.76	15
		C3	85.0	0.924	0.037	78.5%	-	-	0.28	20
	B2 ​	C4	0.24-0.36	1.000	0.043	0.32	-	-	0.00	21
		C5	75.0	0.884	0.033	66.3%	-	-	0.38	19
		C6	4.0	0.932	0.068	3.63 / 3.97	0.89	0.112	0.46	18
	B3 ​	C7	4.0	0.846	0.068	2.79 / 2.78	0.95	0.991	1.04	12
A2 I₂ = 0.8271​	B4 ​	C8	4.0	0.834	0.064	2.97 / 2.81	1.02	0.045*	1.13	11
		C9	4.0	0.872	0.051	3.01 / 2.99	0.98	0.873	0.67	16
		C10	4.0	0.870	0.044	3.00 / 2.98	0.91	0.905	0.57	17
		C11	4.0	0.889	0.036	3.25 / 3.17	0.87	0.320	0.40	21
		C12	4.0	0.894	0.031	3.29 / 3.21	0.84	0.405	0.33	22
		C13	4.0	0.877	0.029	3.16 / 3.08	0.93	0.488	0.36	23
	B5 ​	C14	4.0	0.875	0.058	3.09 / 3.21	0.96	0.214	0.73	14
		C15	4.0	0.859	0.039	2.98 / 3.12	1.05	0.038*	0.55	17
A3 I₃ = 0.8158​	B6	C16	4.0	0.854	0.052	3.18 / 2.98	1.10	0.008**​	0.76	15
		C17	4.0	0.852	0.036	3.20 / 2.98	1.08	0.005**​	0.53	18
		C18	4.0	0.812	0.027	2.58 / 2.54	1.12	0.812	0.51	19
	B7 ​	C19	4.0	0.868	0.053	3.22 / 3.05	0.99	0.021*	0.70	13
		C20	4.0	0.876	0.039	3.04 / 3.08	0.94	0.765	0.48	20
		C21	4.0	0.864	0.029	3.07 / 2.98	1.01	0.412	0.40	24
Urban-Rural Equivalence Index (UEI)​				0.8184​

”

Line 640-659 “An analysis of the subjective perceptions of urban and rural residents in Xiapu County (Figure 6, 7) revealed that residents' overall evaluations of ecological environment, infrastructure, and public services were mostly in the upper-middle range (2.54-3.97), indicating that a certain level of equivalence had been initially established between urban and rural areas. However, this convergence does not represent comprehensive and balanced development. Specifically, the urban-rural gap in ecological environment (B2) and social security system (B5) was relatively small and scored highly, while infrastructure (B3) and cultural identity (B6) were the main weaknesses. Particularly in infrastructure service level (C7), although the urban-rural similarity was extremely high (0.9975), the compliance rate was extremely low (0.4462), presenting a typical dilemma of "small gap but low overall level." Meanwhile, participation in cultural activities (C18) scored the lowest among all indicators (0.3900), reflecting that the lack of public cultural life is a prominent problem faced by both urban and rural areas. In summary, current urban-rural equivalence is more about the convergence of basic conditions than high-quality development. Future planning strategies need to shift from simply "narrowing the urban-rural gap" to comprehensively improving the overall development level to address the practical challenge of "low-level equilibrium."

 

Figure 6 Criterion Layer Proximity-Compliance Analysis Chart

 

Figure 7 Analysis of the proximity and compliance rates of resident questionnaire indicators

”

 

Suggestion 4. Fourthly, in section 4.3, the policy recommendations are too general and generalized, to propose differentiated and actionable paths.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. This section aims to transform the quantitative evaluation and qualitative analysis presented earlier into a precise assessment of the equivalent development stage of urban and rural areas in Xiapu County, and based on this, generate a clearly targeted planning response. We have modified the strategy as shown in line 732-790.

Line 732-790 “(1) Promoting an efficiency revolution in the connectivity system from "tangible" to "effective."

This response directly addresses the shortcomings of inefficient connectivity within "regional communities," based on the discrepancies between indicators such as C7, C10, and C13, and on-site feedback. The core strategy is to promote the integration of transportation, logistics, and information networks to improve overall network efficiency. Specifically, while maintaining the accessibility of main transportation arteries, the focus should be on developing smart and flexible "responsive rural micro-buses" to dynamically connect remote residential areas with township hubs, solving the "last mile" travel problem and directly improving the overall service experience represented by C7. Simultaneously, township transportation service stations and village-level convenience service points should be upgraded to integrated "passenger, freight, and mail" nodes, and a special action to "fill gaps and improve quality" of digital infrastructure should be implemented to ensure stable network signal coverage. By building a county-level smart living service platform, integrating travel, logistics, and public service information, and empowering physical flows with digital flow, a highly efficient, reliable, and intelligent composite urban-rural connectivity system can be constructed, laying a solid spatial foundation for the smooth flow and value exchange of all elements.

(2) Deepen the coordinated reform of service supply and governance system.

This response aims to solve the problem of insufficient quality transmission and coordination faced by the "governance community". It is based on the in-depth analysis of the C8-C15 series indicators, especially C11, C14 and C15. The key to the strategy is to innovate the mechanism to promote the sinking of high-quality public services and the formation of a multi-governance pattern. On the one hand, we should vigorously promote the group development model of "high-quality schools (hospitals) in county towns + branch schools (hospitals) in townships" and support it with the talent rotation and exchange system of "county management and school hiring, county management and township use". This mechanism will ensure the orderly and sustainable flow of high-quality education resources and medical resources to townships and substantially improve the equalization of public services. On the other hand, we need to institutionalize the "urban-rural development co-governance committee" at the township level, and include village cadres, resident representatives, local elites, social organizations, local enterprises and other diverse subjects in the consultation and decision-making process of public affairs, and use digital tools to realize the normalization of government affairs disclosure and opinion collection. By linking the management and maintenance responsibilities of small-scale public spaces and community environmental protection with community organizations, local governance forces are cultivated in practice, transforming institutional trust (C14) and resident participation (C15) into tangible governance effectiveness.

(3) Launching a Social and Cultural Identity and Endogenous Motivation Cultivation Project

This response directly addresses the fundamental contradiction of insufficient cultural identity and endogenous motivation within the "community of relations," and its basis comes directly from the performance of social and cultural dimension indicators such as C16, C17, and C18. The focus of the strategy is to nurture social capital and activate shared emotions through cultural co-cultivation and interest linkage. A systematic urban-rural "cultural co-cultivation" plan must be implemented, not limited to festival performances, but also deeply exploring, recording, and disseminating the county's shared marine culture, immigrant history, and local skills, transforming them into content for community education and public art, and reshaping local cultural identity (C16) and shared memories. More importantly, the "community interest linkage" model should be prioritized and promoted in projects such as rural industrial development, rural tourism, and community building. This model allows local urban and rural residents to invest in the community through various means, including capital, land, and labor, forming an economic community with shared risks and benefits. This deep connection based on common economic interests and social cooperation (C19, C20, C21) can most effectively bridge the psychological barriers between urban and rural identities, cultivate a sense of shared belonging, and thus provide the strongest endogenous driving force for the sustainable development of urban-rural integration in counties.”

 

Suggestion 5. Fifth, the format of the reference list is incorrect and does not meet the requirements of sustainability. A large amount of literature has inconsistent abbreviations for author names and missing DOIs. Meanwhile, foreign papers do not need to be labeled with "[J]".

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have revised the references to conform to the journal's format.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript criticizes conventional urban–rural evaluation systems for being too material, technocratic, and indicator-driven. At the same time, it seeks to avoid a purely postmodern emphasis on subjectivity, fragmentation, and local narratives by constructing a measurable evaluation framework. This position is very close to the metamodernist logic of oscillation between modernist rationalism and postmodern reflexivity (Storm 2021). Recent work on metamodern  thought argues that metamodernism provides a platform for integrating empirical, interpretative, material, symbolic, and practical forms of knowledge, especially under conditions of contemporary polycrisis and complex territorial transformation (Matlovič, Matlovičova 2025). This perspective could significantly enrich the manuscript’s theoretical contribution. The authors’ triadic framework of territorial community, governance community, and relational community may be interpreted not only through community theory, but also as a metamodern geographical framework. Territorial community corresponds to the material and spatial layer of reality; governance community corresponds to the institutional and procedural layer; and relational community corresponds to the symbolic, affective, identity-based, and participatory layer. A metamodern reading would allow the authors to present urban–rural equivalence as a multilayered and oscillatory spatial condition, rather than merely as a composite index. The manuscript would especially benefit from incorporating three metamodernist concepts (see for example: Matlovič, Matlovičová 2025, Storm 2021). First, the concept of metarealism could help the authors conceptualize Xiapu County as a multilayered geographical reality in which material infrastructure, ecological conditions, institutional arrangements, social meanings, cultural identities, and subjective perceptions mutually shape one another. This would strengthen the link between the objective and subjective indicators. The attached study argues that metamodern geography understands geographical objects not only as fixed objective entities, but also as social and cultural constructs that oscillate among different meanings and values . Second, the concept of zetetic epistemology could improve the methodological framing of the evaluation model. The current manuscript presents the evaluation system as if it can directly diagnose urban–rural equivalence. A zetetic approach would make the epistemological position more modest and scientifically credible: the framework should be presented as a provisional, abductive, and revisable tool for identifying the best available explanation of urban–rural integration problems, rather than as a definitive measurement of equivalence. This is consistent with the metamodern emphasis on practical, reflexive, and revisable knowledge . Third, the concept of hylosemiotics could enrich the analysis of cultural identity and social connection. The manuscript currently treats cultural identity mainly through survey indicators. A hylosemiotic perspective would encourage the authors to analyze how material spatial forms—roads, cultural halls, public squares, village landscapes, coastal resources, island settlements, service nodes—become carriers of meaning, belonging, identity, and social memory. This would make the relational-community dimension more geographically grounded rather than merely sociological. The attached paper presents hylosemiotics as a methodological tool for interpreting material-symbolic interactions in space and place .

2. From a metamodern perspective, county-level urban–rural equivalence may be understood as an oscillatory and multilayered condition that moves between material-spatial integration and symbolic-relational belonging. It is neither reducible to modernist equalization through infrastructure and public-service provision, nor to postmodern recognition of difference, plurality, and local narratives. Rather, it requires a dynamic integration of measurable territorial conditions, institutional coordination, cultural identity, and residents’ lived experience. In this sense, the triadic framework of territorial, governance, and relational communities can be interpreted as a metamodern geographical framework: territorial community captures the material-spatial layer, governance community captures the institutional-operational layer, and relational community captures the symbolic-affective layer of urban–rural integration. Such an interpretation strengthens the theoretical coherence of the framework and situates the study within contemporary debates on post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic thought. This addition would make the manuscript more theoretically original. It would also help distinguish the paper from standard urban–rural integration evaluation studies, because the authors could claim not only to add “community theory,” but to position urban–rural equivalence within a broader transformation of geographical thought toward post-disciplinary, post-paradigmatic, reflexive, and practice-oriented spatial analysis .
3. The three dimensions are theoretically attractive, but several indicators do not fit cleanly into their assigned categories. For example, A1 Physical Infrastructure Equivalence includes GDP per capita, urban–rural income gap, industrial structure, land use, urbanization rate, ecological perception, and infrastructure service level. This is broader than “physical infrastructure.” It is actually closer to territorial development foundation or material-spatial equivalence. Similarly, A2 Socioeconomic Service Equivalence is measured almost entirely through perception indicators. If the dimension concerns public-service accessibility and institutional support, the model should include some objective indicators: distance or travel time to schools and health facilities, number of doctors per 10,000 people, school capacity, elderly-care beds, public transport frequency, broadband coverage, and service catchment areas. For A3 Cultural Identity and Social Connectedness, the selected indicators are relevant, but they require stronger measurement validation. Cultural identity, belonging, trust, interaction, and participation are latent constructs. A single Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire is not enough.
4. There is a mathematical inconsistency in the classification table 2. Remove the “>1.00 Above Equivalence” category or modify the transformation method to allow values above 1. The current formulation and classification scheme are incompatible.
5. The manuscript reports 417 valid questionnaires and Cronbach’s α = 0.815, but this is insufficient. Cronbach’s alpha alone does not establish validity. Since the manuscript relies heavily on subjective indicators, construct validity is essential.
6. The title claims “Development and Empirical Validation,” but the paper provides only one case study. A single case can illustrate or apply a framework, but it does not fully validate it.
7. The manuscript concludes that the main bottlenecks are spatial linkage efficiency, grassroots public-service transmission, and weak social identity/participation. These are plausible, but the evidence is thin. At minimum, the paper should present: individual indicator scores in a table, not only Figure 5., raw values for objective indicators, urban and rural mean scores for subjective indicators., standard deviations and confidence intervals, difference tests between urban and rural respondents, weighted obstacle-degree analysis, for example ., evidence from field investigation: sites visited, interviewees, observation method, dates, and coding process. The phrase “field investigations reveal…” is currently too vague for a scientific article.
8. The reported composite index of 0.8184 is interpreted as “moderate equivalence.” This is acceptable according to the authors’ scale, but the precision is misleading. Given that many indicators are based on questionnaire data, the paper should acknowledge sampling uncertainty. Reporting 0.8184 without confidence intervals implies false precision.
9. The interpretation that the three dimensions are highly balanced is interesting, but it should be tested. The difference between A1 = 0.8124, A2 = 0.8271, and A3 = 0.8158 is very small, but this may be an artifact of the weighting and normalization procedures. The authors should test whether the triadic balance remains under alternative weights and benchmarks.
10. The claim that the county has moved beyond “basic gap-filling” is plausible but requires stronger comparative evidence. For example, compare Xiapu with provincial averages, comparable coastal counties, or historical data from Xiapu if available.

References:

Matlovič, René; Matlovičová, Kvetoslava: The Metamodern Shift in Geographical Thought: Oscillatory Ontology and Epistemology, Post-disciplinary and Post-paradigmatic Perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67, 1, 2025, 22-69. . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19629970

Storm, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University  of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript contains many formatting and language problems that must be corrected before publication. The reference list also needs substantial cleanup. MDPI allows references in any style if formatting is consistent and key bibliographic information is included; DOI numbers are strongly encouraged. The current list has broken lineation, inconsistent capitalization, incomplete journal formatting, and questionable source choices.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We have greatly appreciated the reviewers’ efforts. Comments and feedback were very constructive and able to improve the quality of the manuscript.

My Manuscript:sustainability-4307148

Article titled: "Development and Empirical Validation of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalence Comprehensive Evaluation Framework under Community Theory"

Modified parts of the manuscript have been shown in Red highlight color function.The following is a summary of the reviewers' comments.

Kind regards

Qingmu Su

 

Reviewer 3

Suggestion 1. The manuscript criticizes conventional urban–rural evaluation systems for being too material, technocratic, and indicator-driven. At the same time, it seeks to avoid a purely postmodern emphasis on subjectivity, fragmentation, and local narratives by constructing a measurable evaluation framework. This position is very close to the metamodernist logic of oscillation between modernist rationalism and postmodern reflexivity (Storm 2021). Recent work on metamodern  thought argues that metamodernism provides a platform for integrating empirical, interpretative, material, symbolic, and practical forms of knowledge, especially under conditions of contemporary polycrisis and complex territorial transformation (Matlovič, Matlovičova 2025). This perspective could significantly enrich the manuscript’s theoretical contribution. The authors’ triadic framework of territorial community, governance community, and relational community may be interpreted not only through community theory, but also as a metamodern geographical framework. Territorial community corresponds to the material and spatial layer of reality; governance community corresponds to the institutional and procedural layer; and relational community corresponds to the symbolic, affective, identity-based, and participatory layer. A metamodern reading would allow the authors to present urban–rural equivalence as a multilayered and oscillatory spatial condition, rather than merely as a composite index. The manuscript would especially benefit from incorporating three metamodernist concepts (see for example: Matlovič, Matlovičová 2025, Storm 2021). First, the concept of metarealism could help the authors conceptualize Xiapu County as a multilayered geographical reality in which material infrastructure, ecological conditions, institutional arrangements, social meanings, cultural identities, and subjective perceptions mutually shape one another. This would strengthen the link between the objective and subjective indicators. The attached study argues that metamodern geography understands geographical objects not only as fixed objective entities, but also as social and cultural constructs that oscillate among different meanings and values . Second, the concept of zetetic epistemology could improve the methodological framing of the evaluation model. The current manuscript presents the evaluation system as if it can directly diagnose urban–rural equivalence. A zetetic approach would make the epistemological position more modest and scientifically credible: the framework should be presented as a provisional, abductive, and revisable tool for identifying the best available explanation of urban–rural integration problems, rather than as a definitive measurement of equivalence. This is consistent with the metamodern emphasis on practical, reflexive, and revisable knowledge . Third, the concept of hylosemiotics could enrich the analysis of cultural identity and social connection. The manuscript currently treats cultural identity mainly through survey indicators. A hylosemiotic perspective would encourage the authors to analyze how material spatial forms—roads, cultural halls, public squares, village landscapes, coastal resources, island settlements, service nodes—become carriers of meaning, belonging, identity, and social memory. This would make the relational-community dimension more geographically grounded rather than merely sociological. The attached paper presents hylosemiotics as a methodological tool for interpreting material-symbolic interactions in space and place .

Reply: We thank the reviewer for providing the theoretical insights. We have added a dialogue in the discussion section from "urban-rural equivalence" to "metamodern," as shown in line 838-857.

Line 838-857 “From a theoretical perspective, this study is an important supplement and deepening of the mainstream urban-rural "factor-structure" evaluation paradigm, achieving a paradigm shift from "gap comparison" to "relationship diagnosis." Existing research on urban-rural integration or equivalence primarily follows the "factor-structure" analysis paradigm, focusing on measuring the allocation efficiency of quantifiable factors such as population, land, and capital, or the gaps in structural indicators such as economic output, infrastructure, and public service coverage. These studies answer the question of "how much difference" between urban and rural areas, essentially comparing development outcomes or static states. The "community" perspective introduced in this study shifts the analytical focus from "factors" and "structure" to "relationships" and "processes." Our constructed three-dimensional framework of "region-governance-relationship" aims to diagnose whether and how a sustainable connection mechanism of "shared benefits, shared responsibilities, and emotional integration" has been formed between urban and rural areas. The value of this paradigm shift lies in its revelation that even if gaps in certain hardware indicators narrow, if social identity is weak and governance coordination fails, the relationship between urban and rural areas may still be a "fragile approach" or "passive integration," rather than an "organic fusion." This compensates for the shortcomings of traditional research in capturing the "social" and "process-oriented" dimensions of urban-rural relations, providing a more explanatory theoretical lens for understanding the deep mechanisms of urban-rural integration.”

 

Suggestion 2. From a metamodern perspective, county-level urban–rural equivalence may be understood as an oscillatory and multilayered condition that moves between material-spatial integration and symbolic-relational belonging. It is neither reducible to modernist equalization through infrastructure and public-service provision, nor to postmodern recognition of difference, plurality, and local narratives. Rather, it requires a dynamic integration of measurable territorial conditions, institutional coordination, cultural identity, and residents’ lived experience. In this sense, the triadic framework of territorial, governance, and relational communities can be interpreted as a metamodern geographical framework: territorial community captures the material-spatial layer, governance community captures the institutional-operational layer, and relational community captures the symbolic-affective layer of urban–rural integration. Such an interpretation strengthens the theoretical coherence of the framework and situates the study within contemporary debates on post-disciplinary and post-paradigmatic thought. This addition would make the manuscript more theoretically original. It would also help distinguish the paper from standard urban–rural integration evaluation studies, because the authors could claim not only to add “community theory,” but to position urban–rural equivalence within a broader transformation of geographical thought toward post-disciplinary, post-paradigmatic, reflexive, and practice-oriented spatial analysis .

Reply: We appreciate the suggestions from the reviewers, and have added a metamodern interpretation of urban-rural equivalence after the literature review or within the theoretical framework. For example, in line 302-317.

line 302-317“This study's concept of "urban-rural equivalence" transcends the traditional paradigm of developmentalism and modernist planning's pursuit of universality and homogenization, essentially aligning with a postmodernist spatial cognition. From this perspective, urban-rural equivalence at the county level cannot be simplified to a static state of "modernist homogenization" achievable through equalization of infrastructure and public services[43,44]. Similarly, it is not equivalent to the unconditional, fragmented acceptance of local differences, diverse narratives, and relative values ​​championed by pure postmodernism. Instead, it presents a multi-layered, dynamic process of continuous oscillation and negotiation between "the integration of material space" and "the attribution of symbolic relationships." True equivalence signifies a dynamic, contextualized integration among measurable geographical conditions, efficient and collaborative institutional arrangements, actively shared cultural identity, and residents' genuine and differentiated life experiences. Therefore, this study's starting point is a transcendence of the traditional "technocrat-indicator-driven" paradigm, aiming to explore a comprehensive understanding framework encompassing multiple dimensions of material, institutional, and meaning.”

 

Suggestion 3.The three dimensions are theoretically attractive, but several indicators do not fit cleanly into their assigned categories. For example, A1 Physical Infrastructure Equivalence includes GDP per capita, urban–rural income gap, industrial structure, land use, urbanization rate, ecological perception, and infrastructure service level. This is broader than “physical infrastructure.” It is actually closer to territorial development foundation or material-spatial equivalence. Similarly, A2 Socioeconomic Service Equivalence is measured almost entirely through perception indicators. If the dimension concerns public-service accessibility and institutional support, the model should include some objective indicators: distance or travel time to schools and health facilities, number of doctors per 10,000 people, school capacity, elderly-care beds, public transport frequency, broadband coverage, and service catchment areas. For A3 Cultural Identity and Social Connectedness, the selected indicators are relevant, but they require stronger measurement validation. Cultural identity, belonging, trust, interaction, and participation are latent constructs. A single Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire is not enough.

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. We have added relevant information about the questionnaire design to the paper, such as line 470-530.

Line 470-530 “3.2.2 Questionnaire design and sampling survey

This study, based on the "region-governance-relationship" community theory framework and its subordinate perception evaluation indicators, designed the "Urban-Rural Integration Residents' Perception Questionnaire." The questionnaire consists of two parts: the first part assesses residents' socioeconomic attributes, collecting information such as gender, age, household registration, occupation, annual family income, and place of residence; the second part is the core perception scale, corresponding to specific indicators in the evaluation system such as ecological environment, facility convenience, public service satisfaction, governance participation, social trust, cultural identity, frequency of interaction, and willingness to help each other. All perception items were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree/strongly dissatisfied, 5 = strongly agree/strongly satisfied). The initial draft of the questionnaire underwent multiple rounds of review by the research team and experts in urban and rural planning, and a small-scale pre-survey was conducted in Xiapu County. Based on feedback, the wording, order, and options of the items were optimized to form the final questionnaire.

In terms of sampling methods, this study employed a combination of stratified random sampling and convenience sampling. First, based on administrative divisions and urban-rural attributes, the county was divided into three tiers: "urban streets" (Songcheng, Songgang), "central towns" (Sansha, Yacheng, Xinan, etc.), and "general townships," to reflect differences in residents' perceptions under different levels of urbanization and location conditions. Second, the target sample size was allocated according to the approximate proportion of the permanent residents in each tier to ensure a balanced urban-rural sample. The field survey employed face-to-face interviews and on-site questionnaire completion and collection. Random intercept interviews were conducted at community centers, parks, squares, and commercial streets in urban areas, and at markets and public activity areas in administrative villages in townships. The survey was conducted intensively from February to March 2025, distributing 450 questionnaires and collecting 417 valid questionnaires, resulting in a valid response rate of 92.7%.

The demographic characteristics of the valid sample are as follows: the gender ratio is basically balanced (51.1% male, 48.9% female); the age range covers all age groups from under 18 to over 65, with young and middle-aged people (18-45 years old) as the main group (approximately 65.2%), while also including a considerable proportion of middle-aged and elderly people (over 46 years old, 30.0%); the occupational distribution covers enterprise employees, public officials, self-employed individuals, farmers, students, freelancers, and retirees; the household registration types include urban (52.0%) and rural (48.0%). The distribution of annual household income is spindle-shaped, with middle-income households (50,000-150,000 yuan) accounting for the highest proportion (approximately 60.4%). Overall, the sample has good diversity in socioeconomic attributes and can reflect the perspectives of different groups.

Spatially, the 417 samples widely cover all 14 townships (subdistricts) of Xiapu County. Of the total sample size, approximately 35.0% came from the county seat (Songcheng, Songgang), approximately 45.0% from central towns (Sansha, Yacheng, Xinan, Xiahu, Changchun, etc.), and approximately 20.0% from other general townships and remote areas (such as Baiyang, Beibi, and islands). This distribution largely aligns with the spatial agglomeration characteristics of Xiapu County's population, highlighting coverage of major population clusters while also considering the representativeness of peripheral areas, providing a relatively reliable data foundation for evaluating urban-rural equivalence at the county-wide level.

This study systematically tested the reliability and validity of the subjective perception scales (C6-C21), which form the core of the evaluation system (Table 2). A stratified random sampling method was used to survey residents aged 18 and above, and the reliability test was satisfactory (Cronbach's α = 0.815). Exploratory factor analysis initially validated the fit between the scale structure and the theoretical framework (KMO = 0.939, cumulative explained variance 68.7%), followed by confirmatory factor analysis confirming a good fit between the measurement model and the data (χ²/df = 2.41, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.936). The combinatorial reliability (0.78–0.90) and mean variance extracted (0.55–0.65) of all latent variables met the criteria, and the discriminant validity was satisfactory. Overall, the questionnaire tool used in this study exhibits high internal consistency and good construct validity, and can reliably measure the theoretical construct.

Table 2 Reliability Test of the Criterion Layer of the Indicator System

Criterion layer	Criterion layer name	Corresponding indicator number	Reliability testing methods	Reliability coefficient
B2	Spatial land use and ecological foundation	C6	Cronbach's α	0.786
B3	Infrastructure configuration	C7	-	-
B4	Accessibility and sense of gain of public services	C8-C13	Cronbach's α	0.881
B5	Institutional guarantees and sense of trust	C14-C15	Spearman-Brown	0.778
B6	Cultural identity and belonging	C16-C18	Cronbach's α	0.781
B7	Social relations and cooperation	C19-C21	Cronbach's α	0.848

”

 

 

Suggestion 4. There is a mathematical inconsistency in the classification table 2. Remove the “>1.00 Above Equivalence” category or modify the transformation method to allow values above 1. The current formulation and classification scheme are incompatible.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out; it was our oversight, and we have removed the category >1.00 in Table 2.

 

Suggestion 5. The manuscript reports 417 valid questionnaires and Cronbach’s α = 0.815, but this is insufficient. Cronbach’s alpha alone does not establish validity. Since the manuscript relies heavily on subjective indicators, construct validity is essential.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have added the relevant content, such as line 518-531.

line 518-531 “This study systematically tested the reliability and validity of the subjective perception scales (C6-C21), which form the core of the evaluation system (Table 2). A stratified random sampling method was used to survey residents aged 18 and above, and the reliability test was satisfactory (Cronbach's α = 0.815). Exploratory factor analysis initially validated the fit between the scale structure and the theoretical framework (KMO = 0.939, cumulative explained variance 68.7%), followed by confirmatory factor analysis confirming a good fit between the measurement model and the data (χ²/df = 2.41, RMSEA = 0.058, CFI = 0.936). The combinatorial reliability (0.78–0.90) and mean variance extracted (0.55–0.65) of all latent variables met the criteria, and the discriminant validity was satisfactory. Overall, the questionnaire tool used in this study exhibits high internal consistency and good construct validity, and can reliably measure the theoretical construct.

Table 2 Reliability Test of the Criterion Layer of the Indicator System

Criterion layer	Criterion layer name	Corresponding indicator number	Reliability testing methods	Reliability coefficient
B2	Spatial land use and ecological foundation	C6	Cronbach's α	0.786
B3	Infrastructure configuration	C7	-	-
B4	Accessibility and sense of gain of public services	C8-C13	Cronbach's α	0.881
B5	Institutional guarantees and sense of trust	C14-C15	Spearman-Brown	0.778
B6	Cultural identity and belonging	C16-C18	Cronbach's α	0.781
B7	Social relations and cooperation	C19-C21	Cronbach's α	0.848

”

 

Suggestion 6. The title claims “Development and Empirical Validation,” but the paper provides only one case study. A single case can illustrate or apply a framework, but it does not fully validate it.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions and have revised the title to better reflect the content of the article.

“Research on the Construction of a County-level Urban-Rural Equivalent Comprehensive Evaluation System under the Community Theory”

 

Suggestion 7. The manuscript concludes that the main bottlenecks are spatial linkage efficiency, grassroots public-service transmission, and weak social identity/participation. These are plausible, but the evidence is thin. At minimum, the paper should present: individual indicator scores in a table, not only Figure 5., raw values for objective indicators, urban and rural mean scores for subjective indicators., standard deviations and confidence intervals, difference tests between urban and rural respondents, weighted obstacle-degree analysis, for example ., evidence from field investigation: sites visited, interviewees, observation method, dates, and coding process. The phrase “field investigations reveal…” is currently too vague for a scientific article.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for your suggestions. Table 3 presents the quantitative results of each level of indicators under the urban-rural equivalence evaluation index system of Xiapu County, including the standardized scores, weights, comparison of the means of urban and rural samples, statistical significance tests, and the diagnosis of limiting factors based on the obstacle degree model, as shown in line 604-637.

Line 604-637 “Based on the evaluation model established in Chapter 3, the calculation results show (Figure 5，Table 4) that the urban-rural Equivalence Index (UEI) of Xiapu County is 0.8184. According to the preset classification criteria (with 0.70-0.85 indicating moderate equivalence), the county as a whole is at a moderate equivalence level, with the value situated in the upper range of this interval. This study calculated the 95% confidence interval of the index using the Bootstrap method, and the result was [0.794, 0.842]. This suggests that Xiapu County has established a favorable development foundation for urban-rural integration and is generally close to the preset ideal reference state of equivalence. A more critical structural finding concerns the relationships among the three first-level dimensional indices. The physical infrastructure equivalence (A1) index is 0.8124, the socioeconomic service equivalence (A2) index is 0.8271, and the cultural identity and social connection equivalence (A3) index is 0.8158. All three indices fall within the moderate equivalence range, with minimal variation among them (the maximum difference is only 0.0147). This result challenges the simple linear assumption that "material foundation leads while socio-culture lags," revealing that urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County is characterized by a notable pattern of initial synergy and coordinated advancement across the three dimensions of material foundation, institutional services, and socio-culture. The public service and institutional guarantee dimension (A2) shows a slight lead, suggesting relative success in the spatial layout of public service networks and perceived institutional fairness. The socio-cultural dimension (A3) does not lag significantly behind, implying that social integration has remained broadly synchronous with improvements in material and service conditions.

The indices for urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County are concentrated in the range of 0.81-0.83. High scores indicate that the county is relatively close to the pre-set ideal state in multiple dimensions, but this does not mean that its development level has surpassed the basic national conditions or reached a developed stage. Rather, it reveals that, based on the existing foundation, the structural synergy of urban-rural relations is relatively good. Secondly, the qualitative conclusion of "moderate equivalence," combined with the specific values ​​of the comprehensive index, jointly demonstrates that Xiapu County's urban-rural integration has moved beyond the general "basic gap-filling" stage and entered a new platform requiring optimization of the quality of "connection" and "synergy" mechanisms.

Table 4 Analysis of Urban-Rural Equivalence Measurement Results in Xiapu County

Target Layer (A) and Composite Index	Criterion layer  (B)	Corresponding indicator (C)	Reference values	Indicator score (Sj)	Indicator weight (wi)	Urban/rural sample mean (urban/rural)	Standard deviation (combined)	Urban-rural difference t-test (p-value)	Barrier degree (%)	Ranking
A1 I₁ = 0.8124​	B1 ​	C1	13.0	0.594	0.110	13.2 / 7.1	-	-	4.47	5
		C2	1.5	0.857	0.053	1.73	-	-	0.76	15
		C3	85.0	0.924	0.037	78.5%	-	-	0.28	20
	B2 ​	C4	0.24-0.36	1.000	0.043	0.32	-	-	0.00	21
		C5	75.0	0.884	0.033	66.3%	-	-	0.38	19
		C6	4.0	0.932	0.068	3.63 / 3.97	0.89	0.112	0.46	18
	B3 ​	C7	4.0	0.846	0.068	2.79 / 2.78	0.95	0.991	1.04	12
A2 I₂ = 0.8271​	B4 ​	C8	4.0	0.834	0.064	2.97 / 2.81	1.02	0.045*	1.13	11
		C9	4.0	0.872	0.051	3.01 / 2.99	0.98	0.873	0.67	16
		C10	4.0	0.870	0.044	3.00 / 2.98	0.91	0.905	0.57	17
		C11	4.0	0.889	0.036	3.25 / 3.17	0.87	0.320	0.40	21
		C12	4.0	0.894	0.031	3.29 / 3.21	0.84	0.405	0.33	22
		C13	4.0	0.877	0.029	3.16 / 3.08	0.93	0.488	0.36	23
	B5 ​	C14	4.0	0.875	0.058	3.09 / 3.21	0.96	0.214	0.73	14
		C15	4.0	0.859	0.039	2.98 / 3.12	1.05	0.038*	0.55	17
A3 I₃ = 0.8158​	B6	C16	4.0	0.854	0.052	3.18 / 2.98	1.10	0.008**​	0.76	15
		C17	4.0	0.852	0.036	3.20 / 2.98	1.08	0.005**​	0.53	18
		C18	4.0	0.812	0.027	2.58 / 2.54	1.12	0.812	0.51	19
	B7 ​	C19	4.0	0.868	0.053	3.22 / 3.05	0.99	0.021*	0.70	13
		C20	4.0	0.876	0.039	3.04 / 3.08	0.94	0.765	0.48	20
		C21	4.0	0.864	0.029	3.07 / 2.98	1.01	0.412	0.40	24
Urban-Rural Equivalence Index (UEI)​				0.8184​

”

 

Suggestion 8. The reported composite index of 0.8184 is interpreted as “moderate equivalence.” This is acceptable according to the authors’ scale, but the precision is misleading. Given that many indicators are based on questionnaire data, the paper should acknowledge sampling uncertainty. Reporting 0.8184 without confidence intervals implies false precision.

Reply: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have added the corresponding explanations, such as in line 608-609.

line 608-609 “This study calculated the 95% confidence interval of the index using the Bootstrap method, and the result was [0.794, 0.842].”

 

Suggestion 9. The interpretation that the three dimensions are highly balanced is interesting, but it should be tested. The difference between A1 = 0.8124, A2 = 0.8271, and A3 = 0.8158 is very small, but this may be an artifact of the weighting and normalization procedures. The authors should test whether the triadic balance remains under alternative weights and benchmarks.

Reply: Thank you for the reviewers' suggestions. We have added the corresponding explanations, such as in line 626-635.

Line 626-635 “The indices for urban-rural equivalence in Xiapu County are concentrated in the range of 0.81-0.83. High scores indicate that the county is relatively close to the pre-set ideal state in multiple dimensions, but this does not mean that its development level has surpassed the basic national conditions or reached a developed stage. Rather, it reveals that, based on the existing foundation, the structural synergy of urban-rural relations is relatively good. Secondly, the qualitative conclusion of "moderate equivalence," combined with the specific values of the comprehensive index, jointly demonstrates that Xiapu County's urban-rural integration has moved beyond the general "basic gap-filling" stage and entered a new platform requiring optimization of the quality of "connection" and "synergy" mechanisms.”

 

 

Suggestion 10. The claim that the county has moved beyond “basic gap-filling” is plausible but requires stronger comparative evidence. For example, compare Xiapu with provincial averages, comparable coastal counties, or historical data from Xiapu if available.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' suggestions and have added relevant content to the case studies section, such as line 332-352.

Line 332-352 “A horizontal comparison shows that Xiapu County still lags behind the provincial average in some macroeconomic indicators. For example, its per capita GDP in 2024 (123,400 yuan) was lower than the Fujian provincial average (137,920 yuan), and its urbanization rate of permanent residents (64.4%) was also lower than the provincial average (71.80%). However, this precisely illustrates that its development bottleneck is no longer simply a matter of insufficient "quantity." Vertical and structural evidence shows that Xiapu County has been selected as one of the "Top Ten" counties for county-level economic development in Fujian Province for three consecutive years. Decisive progress has been made in infrastructure "hard coverage" (e.g., 51.2% of administrative villages in the county have two-lane roads, and network coverage exceeds 90%), and fiscal investment in public services such as education and healthcare has continued to increase. These facts collectively point to the fact that the main contradiction in Xiapu County's urban and rural development has shifted from the early absolute issue of "availability" (such as road access, internet access, and school construction) to the current issues of "quality and efficiency" and "coordination" (such as spatial connectivity efficiency, service delivery quality, and social integration). Therefore, the evaluation system and conclusions of this study focus on the latter, which is a precise response to its development entering a new stage. Thus, Xiapu County effectively presents the complexity of urban-rural relations within the county, providing a suitable case study for examining urban-rural equivalence from a community perspective.”

 

Suggestion 11. References:Matlovič, René; Matlovičová, Kvetoslava: The Metamodern Shift in Geographical Thought: Oscillatory Ontology and Epistemology, Post-disciplinary and Post-paradigmatic Perspectives. Folia Geographica, 67, 1, 2025, 22-69. . https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19629970

Storm, J.A.J. (2021). Metamodernism. The Future of Theory. Chicago: The University  of Chicago Press. 359 p. ISBN 978-0-226-78665-0.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for providing such a high-quality article, which greatly helped improve the theoretical aspects of the paper, and we have incorporated it into the paper.

 

Suggestion 12. MDPI allows references in any style if formatting is consistent and key bibliographic information is included; DOI numbers are strongly encouraged. The current list has broken lineation, inconsistent capitalization, incomplete journal formatting, and questionable source choices.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have revised the references to conform to the journal's format.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your positive response and comprehensive revisions to the review comments. All the issues raised have been substantively addressed, and the manuscript has met the publication standards of the journal.

The following minor revisions are required before final acceptance:

1. Supplement specific literature or policy references for the two benchmark values: per capita GDP of 130,000 yuan and urban-rural income ratio of 1.5.
2. Check the format of references and other elements to ensure full compliance with the journal's requirements.

Author Response

Reply to reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We have greatly appreciated the reviewers’ efforts. Comments and feedback were very constructive and able to improve the quality of the manuscript.

My Manuscript:sustainability-4307148RI

Article titled: "Development and Empirical Validation of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalence Comprehensive Evaluation Framework under Community Theory"

Modified parts of the manuscript have been shown in Red highlight color function.The following is a summary of the reviewers' comments.

Kind regards

Qingmu Su

 

 

Reviewer 1:

Suggestion 1.Supplement specific literature or policy references for the two benchmark values: per capita GDP of 130,000 yuan and urban-rural income ratio of 1.5.

 

Reply: Thank you to the reviewer for your suggestions. We have added relevant references.

 

Suggestion 2. Check the format of references and other elements to ensure full compliance with the journal's requirements.

Reply:We appreciate the reviewers' reminder and have revised the references to conform to the journal's format.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you to the reviewer for your recognition of the article.

My Manuscript:sustainability-4307148RI

Article titled: "Development and Empirical Validation of a County-Level Urban-Rural Equivalence Comprehensive Evaluation Framework under Community Theory"

Kind regards

Qingmu Su